<p>The nature of the ranking systems will always render them imperfect and prone to criticism. The questions to ask are, “Would be better off today without the pioneering efforts of USnews 25 years ago?” and “Can we trust the schools to deliver transparent data without pressure from outside groups?” </p>
<p>I believe that considering that in December 2007, it is STILL hard to find verifiable and useful data about the admission for the class of 2011, we know the answers to the above questions. Some schools find it easy to upload their CDS forms as soon as they become available; others go through extreme lengths to hide them from prying eyes.</p>
<p>Which was exactly my point on the previous page. If USC, Penn, Colgate and other highly selective schools REFUSE to publish thier CDS today, (bcos obviously, they believe it is not in their best interests to do so), why would they publish the data for the Ed Con?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Puhleeeezzzeee: might as well put their college catalog online; oh, wait, it already is online. Perhaps, Fitzsimmons will ask the H Marketing Department to revamp their catalog to support “different means of information”. Nevertheless, this will turn us back to the old ways of doing things since the prospective families will see only what the colleges want them to see, prior to USNews analyzing objective and subjective data.</p>
<p>An apt comment. That was my LOL of the day. Colleges describe themselves all over the place–certainly all over the Web–but can I believe the descriptions?</p>
<p>Corporate America figured out a long, long time ago that there was no future in taking on Consumer Reports, no matter how flawed the methodology in the particular case.
The only reason I can figure why some colleges are persisting in this futile effort is moral smugness, or the “old boy” admissions system brilliantly sketched by xiggi a few posts back (#15).</p>
<p>danas - thanks for that post - now this discussion is getting interesting and starting to touch on the heart of the matter but, if you ask me, the key post is Tokenadult’s and the issue at stake is public trust. Gardner et al. would undoubtedly be fascinated by the responses generated on this thread. I know I am, just as I am as always firmly vested in cheering in favor of the free spirit of open debate. Thacker may be a charlatan, a patsy, or even a cagey business wheeler-dealer for some (and in Xiggi’s case, all three rolled into one) but the fact of the matter he is out there and, from the looks of it, will be there for a while to come. This may be a case of “Promises, Promises” but promises that institutions with clout and a profound stake in the public trust have chosen to bet on so that he can put their money where his mouth is - will the Mellon Foundation be proud of their investment? That is, again, another question. Going back to an archived Inside Higher ed article, educators, admissions counselors, and others interested in admission reform engaged in heated debate and discussion asking whether or not college admissions is “at a watershed” . In this new flat world of college admissions, that was about the only point that everyone could agree to agree upon. The topics under the microscope ranged from holistic admissions to early decision to ranking, and, of course public trust - what is it and how to gain it rather than just “regain” it. </p>
<p>The great boom in the use of the media and the internet - that includes blogs and other information websites - is under the microscope here and a fixation on Thacker’s personal qualities or lack of them merely obfuscates the issues. I think it is safe to predict that USNWR rankings (and Consumer Reports) will be around for a good long time and will adapt to keep its consumer niche and well-earned public trust. I also think that most parents and students will simply shrug their shoulders at the subtleties of the debate and simply want to google search and click to find the information they need or want - as Tokenadult has pointed out, with the fewer clicks the better. Most of the parents and students I know are not simpletons, however, and won’t settle for second rate especially when what they are looking for in higher ed is a first-rate education. What is at stake here is not how to earn the public trust or manipulate it but how to make sure that the information offered is the real deal and not just window dressing for what is perceived to be a new “old boy” system.</p>
<p>and lest we forget which side the ox is being gored, there is always this valuable contribution to the world of internet ranking methodology:</p>
<p>
[quote]
For the seventh straight year, the CRS found that US News’ college ranking is fraudulent in at least two ways: 1) it tries to make quantitivate distinctions between universities on the basis of statistically insignificant differences; 2) it jiggles its methodology every year to make sure its rankings change in order to generate public interest. It should be noted that US News fired its investigative reporting staff in May 2007. It is no longer a viable magazine of journalism. Instead it makes its money by fooling the public with its rankings.
[/quote}</p>
<p>I’m not so convinced by criticism of U.S. News by a business competitor. It happens that I don’t regard U.S. News very much most of the time when I look at college data. For example, I compiled by list of [outstanding</a> colleges](<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/4946476-post97.html]outstanding”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/4946476-post97.html) without referring to U.S. News at all. But I certainly welcome, as I did when compiling that list, anyone else who has an opinion on colleges to bring it on, and let people know what colleges they think should be considered by students looking for a good college experience.</p>
<p>dear tokenadult, business competitor? who? where? please take just a second or two of your time to click on the links provided and actually read the thing. It might even put a smile on your face, or then again, maybe not.</p>
<p>Asteriskea, since I am not certain about how serious you were when quoting the CRS, I’ll refrain to comment on your quotation of that NC-based “organization.” </p>
<p>Of course, fwiw, I still wonder why S.R. aka Rumpelstiltskin needs to remain anonymous, especially for his works of fiction. I’ve to admit that his published works tend to be as crystal clear as water can be. :)</p>
<p>Add in those colleges that want to hide their data (as they do their CDS) and those that want to climb the rankings and are happy to play the USNews game, and “what we have here is a failure to communicate.” (props to you xiggi if he get the quotation, which is way before your time)</p>
<p>But, more importantly organizational theorists call it Goal Conflict, and IMO that is the biggest impediment that the Educrats have to address in developing their own version of the “real deal.”</p>
<p>Good point, BB and this is really nothing new at all. Which is why some find SR’s message to be as crystal clear as water in 2007 as it did when the spoof ranking site first began. Still, the jester in S.R. has a thing or two to say about flawed methodology and educational core values. It is also true that even this is imperfect and prone to criticism. </p>
<p>The Numbers Game, and the Rules for the Game:</p>
<p>I’ve to admit having the hardest of time to follow the direction of this discussion. How do we exactly reconcile Stuart Rosh’s spoof with a serious discussion on college rankings, and especially the US News? </p>
<p>As far as the EC, should we not first attempt to ascertain if Thacker has developed a consistent and logical attack on the negative impact of the rankings? We all know what he’d LIKE to do. Unfortunately, his record speaks for itself. For all the noise, his summer blitzkrieg amounted to a direct attack on the EXACT part that is controlled (read manipulated) by the schools themselves: the infamous peer assessment! Thus, so far, were he to succeed (unknowingly, of course) he’d also make the USNews better and stronger --if the irrational and biased PA was eliminated. Broken clocks still show the correct time twice a day.</p>
<p>Would Thacker like to attack USNews methodology? Probably! Alas, for him to attack it, he’d have first to understand its technical aspects. And that is seemingly too high a hurdle!</p>
<p>PS BB, should we rename Thacker “the Captain” or Luke?</p>
<p>Xiggi, thanks for posting that bringing up SR’s site is not to your liking because you have a difficult time reconciling his jocular jibe against ranking colleges with a serious discussion on the subject - views that over the years many serious folks agree mesh nicely with educators’ views on the subject of admissions reform. (That poor ox is getting gored on many sides and I did not think it necessary to state that the linked Duke piece and S.R.'s own article from 2001 are indeed deeply serious). Professor R. is a man of self-professed many hats including academic and scientist. He is not afraid to wear the jester’s mask but he is nobody’s fool. His message is quite clear even as he plumbs the deep and murky well of the college admissions game. The Jerry Maguire quote “Show me the money” can easily be followed by his question “Who is coming with me?” As I have posted many times before, I am sure you have not forgotten the “Admissions Revolution” thread, Thacker’s and his outfit represents only one voice out there calling for admissions reform - if he has gone fishing and is reeling in donations that will produce yet another admissions resource site this is a development worth following. Unless the job is utterly botched he will gain supporters from among those engaged in education (in and out of the Ivory Tower). This is all inextricably connected with public trust and Gardner et al. are busy doing all that good work on this subject that probably does in some shape or fashion even address the issue of goal conflict.</p>
<p>I would not consider comparing Thacker to Touchstone or Feste and do not expect to rename him MISTER Tibbs either. That said, and in the spirit of show not tell, I believe I have answered your question about how we look at the goings on at the EC differently - and may I remind you, I have not pronounced any conclusion or endorsement of the EC - unless you take my interest in admissions reform and willingness to wait and see what comes out of all this as such.</p>
<p>The Daily Princetonian reports on this story, telling us that P.U., along with other peer colleges including MIT and Dartmouth, have joined to fund a new rankings list. You might have to read that title twice and then again:“U. funds new rankings list”. I guess it is hard to even think about giving up a mind-set geared toward that coveted no.1 spot even when educators and administrators appear to agree that there are perceived flaws in all ranking systems as well as in “the artificial standard by which the outside world judges” quality IHEs. </p>
<p>Asteriskea, I beg to differ! While we do indeed look at the “goings” of the EC differently, I don’t think you have neither shown or told HOW they could be positive. I was not interested in in reading more quotations and more excerpts from the Chronicle about the disjointed efforts of the EC, as much as I was interested in your undiluted opinion about the same. </p>
<p>Oh, as far as the ex-Duke professor goes, there is a more than a fine line between fiction and scholarly research. I maintain that the Saturday Night Life type built by SR does not advance the discussions positively, and neither did bringing up that site without full and immediate disclosure of it being nothing but a silly joke. Of course, it it meant to draw a conclusive parallel to the soundness and importance of the EC, I may change my opinion.</p>
<p>For some one who produces a steady stream of engaged, out-of-the-box material, obviously loves the art of parody, and describes himself as being a full tilt science geek who finds certain avenues of research boring, (as he does the atmosphere at Ivies) and relishes being called as rare as a duck in a tree, I’ll bet Stuart Rosh has been called a lot of things over the years but not dull. I wonder what he would say if wrote that one up in his blog.</p>
<p>Please note that Lloyd Thacker has abandoned plans to unveil his “'Beyond Ranking” web site and has sold his soul to none than the College Board. </p>
<p>Just I predicted this snake oil salesman has found the deep pocket master he so desperately wanted to serve.</p>